On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 16:14 -0800, Shawn Walker wrote: > > On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 18:28 +0000, Darren J Moffat > > wrote: > > > Erast Benson wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 09:57 -0800, John Plocher > > wrote: > > > >> As Dennis, Casper and others have said: What is > > the problem that > > > >> dual licensing is trying to solve? > > > > > > > > one little problem... to become a major OSS > > community out there. > > > > > > > > And today, after 1.5 year of our existence we are > > still a minority > > > > (community-wise), and unfortunately, this is > > true. Just open b56 > > > > changelog and try to find how many people outside > > of Sun contributed to > > > > it to happen? None or one! And I bet Sun would > > like to increase outside > > > > contribution too but with CDDL alone it is just > > not possible in > > > > foreseeable future. People afraid to contribute > > to CDDL projects for > > > > variety of reasons, look how cdrecord has been > > forked to be pure GPL > > > > project just because of that. > > > > > > Do you actually have proof that there are people > > who will contribute to > > > OpenSolaris code that is currently under the CDDL > > if it is dual-licensed > > > or single licensed under GPLv3 ? > > > > > > Or is this assumption based on the behaviour of the > > case you site ? > > > > > > If there is proof I'd love to see it because it > > seems that nobody on > > > either side of this debate (I see at least a > > triangle: CDDL only / dual > > > CDDL and GPLv3 / GPLv3 only) [ me included!! ] > > actually has any evidence > > > only opinions about what might happen. > > > > Well, on pro-GPLv3 side we at least have some > > precedence where CDDL > > hurts. Again most visible: cdrecord is a good one and > > Debian community > > not acceptance of CDDL is another one. > > > > On pro-CDDL side we have nothing... just opinions, > > emotions and fear. > > > > -- > > Erast > > Wrong. Apple, FreeBSD and other projects are *proof* that the CDDL provides > benefits. We do not have "just opinions, emotions and fear." I mean really, > that's just an ungrateful and untrue thing to say. > > Debian doesn't even accept some of the Free Software Foundation's licenses, > so what's your answer to that? > > Sorry, but Debian is unreasonable in their demands in many people's opinions. > Why do you think Ubuntu is succeeding where they *failed*? > > -Shawn >
you mis-read my message or i didn't explain it fully. I do appreciate CDDL benefits, I just trying to say there is a theory :-) that GPLv3/CDDL dual-license will benefit us even more. Again, dual-licensing alone is not enough, but still will be helpful first step. also, I'm not sure that anybody here could clearly proof me that keeping CDDL-only OpenSolaris will help either. I tend to think that it will not hurt us more than it did already, but at the same time I think dual-licensing will actually improve our "outside" appearance and attract more folks on board. I think we need to vote.. :-) http://www.gnusolaris.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=5861 -- Erast _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
